Both arguments are successful. I agree with both statements made through their arguments, contrary to the fact that they are arguing opposite opinions. On page 1 the cartoon is for GE existing in food because the person is starving and foods that contain GE don’t need as much water to grow, so this, makes it seem like the water will be going to people in need. How can you argue that someone should starve? You can’t, that makes the cartoon successful and persuasive to accept GE enhanced food. The advertisement on page 24 also is victorious in creating a strong unarguable statement for the reader. The general public should be notified and have complete access to the things that make up their food. That in my eyes is also unarguable. And argument is composed of mostly manipulation, the way you can get your reader to think, in both cases they have manipulated me into believing what they want.